The refutation of the ontological argument, or critical philosophy versus dogmatic philosophy

Abstract

In his paper “Kant’s Critique of the Three Theistic Proofs [partial], from Kant’s Rational Theology”, included in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Critical Essays, Allen Wood intends to show that Kant would not have proved that existence could not be a real or determining predicate. In his paper “Anselm’s Ontological Arguments”, published in The Philosophical Review, Norman Malcolm intends to show that Kant would not have proved that necessary existence could not be a real or determining predicate. By dealing with Wood’s and Malcolm’s defenses of the ontological argument against the objections of Kant, I intend to suggest, firstly, that Kant’s argument works, and, secondly, that it does not depend on his Postulates of Empirical Thought. In fact, I advocate the thesis that the second Postulate could be justified by an appeal to the conclusions of Kant about existence in the section “On the impossibility of an ontological proof of God’s existence”.